Talk:Apollo class
Vulcan shiptype? TNG : Unification shows us this vessels and several refenrences that tend to indicate that Vulcan still have their own space vessels. The ferengi say approximately "i'm not interested in vulcan ships, vulcans are pacifists, my custumers want warships" so we can guess the vulcan vessels are very lighly armed (if at all), and used mainly for science, displomacy, and so on. Is their any other reference in TNG, DS9, VOY or the movies indicating that Federation members have their own fleets? --rami : The Benzites in , as I recall. However, their status in the Federation (ie minor affiliation or full member, etc) was unclear. --Alan del Beccio 18:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Removed I removed the following that was added in the background section regarding the one and only image on the page. :Image on right is not representative of Apollo-class starship. (Starfleet charthttp://www.st-minutiae.com/academy/engineering102A/fleet_starfleet_2.gif) Of course, the link supplied doesn't work, so... yeah... --From Andoria with Love 21:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Merge with Should this page be merged with due to the - Horizon-type merge precedent. --Pseudohuman 22:44, December 16, 2009 (UTC) Added the merge banner a few days ago. I think we should merge, as the Apollo-class designation was invented for the Encyclopedia for this shiptype, and later on appeared in canon. Also in apocrypha, later Last Unicorn supplements agree this is the 24th century Apollo-class. So overall, I think the pages should be merged. Under the canonical title name, following the Daedalus-class case precedence. --Pseudohuman 12:43, July 24, 2010 (UTC) :I only know of one LUG supplement that agrees with the Star Trek: Encyclopedia and that was released after LUG lost the Trek RPG license, the Starship Recognition Manual: Volume 1: The Ships of Starfleet. Does that have any bearing on this debate? --Jrofeta 05:17, August 25, 2010 (UTC) I suggested this merge about a year ago, and put the notice on the page about two months ago.. and there have been no objections or comments against it, so could someone who knows how to merge pages properly do it, please, thank you. :) --Pseudohuman 23:26, September 13, 2010 (UTC) Merge discussion from Vulcan freighter This should be merged to as it is clearly the same shiptype. --Pseudohuman 10:16, January 28, 2010 (UTC) :It's hard for me to tell if they are the same- we do know it was the same model, right?--31dot 11:18, January 28, 2010 (UTC) Yup, same model. There is a little bulge added to the front of the ship, from when the model was reused as Tosk's starship from the Gamma Quadrant. Ex Astris has a side-view comparison, and calls this a "variant". http://ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/other_ships.htm but as T'Pau was a decommissioned ship of the Vulcan merchant fleet and this is a Vulcan freighter, It's safe to assume they are intended to be the same shiptype. --Pseudohuman 11:34, January 28, 2010 (UTC) :We shouldn't just assume it, but if it was the same model and nothing in canon suggests it was a totally different class, then we can put they are the same, which it looks like we should.--31dot 11:42, January 28, 2010 (UTC) ::I would say we can't be sure on this one, as there is the one external difference. While it could just be a refit, or upgrade, of the T'Pau, for all we know this is another class in the same linage, much like the DY-500 class retains the "basic" look of the DY-100 class. The fact that the same model was used thought does warrant a mention on this page, and the T'Pau's page, though. - 18:04, January 28, 2010 (UTC) I agree with Archduk, that we shouldn't just assume 100% that they are the same class, but i think the precedence here is that when we dont have different classnames for "variants" we put them on one page, and not separate pages for easier reference , and Class J starship for example.--Pseudohuman 22:03, January 28, 2010 (UTC) ::In which case the merge seems like a good idea. - 22:13, January 28, 2010 (UTC) ::: What's the hurry buckaroos? From Memory Alpha:Merging and splitting articles: "If, after '''seven to ten days', there's consensus, perform the merge by copying all information from that page to the new one. Note the source page of the new information in the edit summary, and leave a note about the performed merge on the talk page." ::: This was barely 24 hours.... --Alan 17:36, January 29, 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I didn't read the merge policy. my bad. This just seemed like a clear case from the beginning considering all the similar precedences... , , , Class J starship, ... --Pseudohuman 17:45, January 29, 2010 (UTC) ::: Well inspite not having the ability to channel my 5-year-younger-self, I did initially write ''both articles and apparently there was an apparent precendent at that time that supported the division of the two arrticles. Obviously I don't recall now... but reading the above replies, the support isn't so unanimous that it supported a rush order. --Alan 17:53, January 29, 2010 (UTC) ::Yes, maybe they should have given it a little longer, but the consensus seems clear- I don't see anyone saying they flat out were against the idea. But it's done with, no harm was done, it can be reversed if need be, so what's the issue? I don't think there is any user here who follows every policy to the letter, especially when there seems to be agreement.--31dot 22:24, January 29, 2010 (UTC)